[dmortin]

> Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers

The question is: is there content which is useful, but not provided by volunteers? We see more and more content behind paywalls, and it is a loss for many people who can't pay, because they won't be able to access the same content for free supported by ads.

So the result is poor people are going to lose access to certain contents, while well to do people will still have access.

[pixl97]

As the world always has been. There is no human right that we must have free content supported by ads. And ad supported content has tons of its own issues.

[carlosjobim]

The answer to that question is absolutely yes. Investigative journalism, which is some of the most useful content in existence can not sustainably be provided by volunteers.

> many people who can't pay

Everybody is already paying for Spotify and for Netflix. They can pay for mass syndication of textual content. But it needs to be like Spotify or YouTube, where everything and anything goes. Poor people always had access to read newspapers.